Churchill's a wanker

[Gob]

An insurance giant is appealing against paying up to £5million compensation to a schoolgirl left brain damaged in a car accident – because she wasn’t wearing a high-visibility jacket at the time.

Bethany Probert was 13 when she was hit by a car while was walking home from riding stables along a country lane on a December evening. The schoolgirl, now 16, suffered a broken collarbone, lung damage, and devastating head injuries which have caused permanent brain damage.

A High Court judge found the driver 100 per cent liable for the crash but his insurers, Churchill, have appealed, claiming it was partly Bethany’s fault. Yesterday her mother, Joanna, hit out at the insurers. ‘I think it’s disgraceful that they have appealed,’ she said. ‘Our lives have all been ruined. We had to sell a house to afford her care and I had to leave my job to care for Bethany full time. ‘We have run out of money now and even if they lose the appeal, the process is delaying any compensation claims.’ Bethany, of Silverstone, Northamptonshire, had been to see her horse Troy at the stables near her home in December 2009.

Instead of waiting for her mother to collect her, she decided to walk home down the narrow, bending, unlit lane. She was listening to music on earphones.

Paul Moore, a fitter, who was driving to work in his Saab 9-3, clipped Bethany as she walked on the grass verge, knocking her into a hedge. He stopped, found her and alerted the emergency services. Bethany was left with limited walking ability, depression and a lack of concentration or spatial awareness. She now requires specialist equipment, a support worker and an open plan, single-storey home. Mrs Probert, 51, sued Mr Moore for compensation to sustain care costs for the rest of Bethany’s life. Last August, at the High Court in London Bethany was cleared of any contributory negligence and Churchill was held to be fully liable.

Mr Moore was found to be driving at about 50mph – which the judge considered to be too fast for such a road in darkness. But the Court of Appeal has allowed the insurers to appeal against the original ruling. The test case will decide to what extent children can be held responsible for their injuries in road accidents. Churchill’s lawyers plan to tell the court Bethany should have known to wear reflective clothing because she was an experienced horse rider. But Mrs Probert said: ‘It is ridiculous. They are saying she should have been wearing a high-visibility jacket because she rode a horse but she only ever rode a horse in the field. You don’t expect three years down the line to be still waiting for closure.’

Bethany’s solicitor, Richard Langton, said the size of the payout was due to be set at a separate hearing, which has been delayed by Churchill’s appeal. ‘The final amount due is decided once the future costs for the victim are known,’ he said. ‘The likely value of this claim was due to be between £3million and £5million.’ Churchill said: ‘While we accept that our insured was liable in part for the accident, we are appealing [against] the decision that he was entirely to blame.’

[rubato]

What portion of home care and long-term care is paid by national health? Shouldn't they be the ones suing for damages?

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Every morning at about 6:00am I pass a guy walking down the LIE service road and only when I am close to him do I see him on the shoulder of the road. He wears all black or dark blue. Anyone walking or riding in the dark should wear light color garments or reflective material. Doesn't excuse any car hitting a person, just that people should be more aware of their surroundings and cicrumstances.